I. DIVINE REVELATION IMPOSSIBLE AND UNNECESSARY.
The Hindoos, Egyptians, Persians, Chaldeans, Jews, and Mahomedans, and
various other nations, claim to have had a special revelation of God's
will communicated to them for the benefit of the whole human race.
But the following facts and arguments will tend to show that no such
revelations have ever been made, and that there is none necessary:--
We will inquire, in the first place, what a divine revelation would
be. Coming from a perfect being, it would of course be perfect, and
perfectly adapted to the moral and spiritual wants of the whole human
race. Such a revelation would be so clear, explicit, and unequivocal in
its language with respect to every doctrine, principle, and precept, and
every statement of fact, that no person of ordinary mind could possibly
misunderstand it; and no two persons could differ for a moment with
respect to the meaning of any text embraced in it. It would need no
priest and no commentator to explain it; and, if any attempt should be
made to explain it, it would only "darken counsel," render the matter
more obscure, and would amount to the blasphemous assumption that
Omniscience can be enlightened, and his works improved. And a _divine_
revelation should be communicated to the whole human race; for, if
restricted to one nation, it would render God obnoxious to the charge
of partiality. And, in order to make it practicable to communicate it
to all nations, it would be necessary to comprehend it in a universal
language constructed for the purpose, or else impart it to the world
through all the three thousand languages in use by different nations and
tribes. But, as such a revelation has never been made or known on the
earth, it is at once evident that no such revelation has ever been
communicated to man by Infinite Wisdom.
II. REVELATION FOR ONE AGE AND NATION NO REVELATION FOR ANOTHER.
A revelation issued two or three thousand years ago could be no
revelation for this age. The Rev. Jeremiah Jones admits that "a
revelation can only be a revelation to him who receives it," and can not
be made use of to convince another (Canon, p. 51). Bishop Burnet admits
that a revelation to one man is no revelation to another. You can
neither see nor feel a revelation made to another person. You can merely
see the marks on the paper on which he has recorded what he claims to
have been a revelation to him. And this is all the proof you can have in
the case, which is no proof at all.
III. A REVELATION ON THE BRAIN CALLED REASON.
I know that God has inscribed a revelation on my brain called reason, as
it is ever present with me. Hence I know that it was _designed for me_.
But I can not have this testimony with regard to a written revelation,
as it was not communicated to me. Hence, as a matter of certainty and
safety, I should hold to my own revelation in preference _to any other._
I can only be certain of my own revelation. Indeed I can not know that
any other revelation was designed for me, because a dozen revelations
are brought forward by different nations for my acceptance; and I can
not determine to an absolute certainty which is divine and which
is human. To settle the matter, I must have another revelation made
expressly to me to inform me which is the true revelation. To save this
extra labor, I might as well have had the original revelation itself.
IV. THE HUMAN BRAIN SUPERIOR TO ANY REVELATION.
As an idiot can not be made to understand a revelation, it is evident
that a revelation presupposes a rational mind for its reception;
otherwise the revelation would be perfectly useless. Hence it is evident
the brain must be right before the revelation is given, or it will
not be able to understand it. This makes the brain superior to, and of
higher authority, than revelation.
The moment we begin to reason on the revelation of the Bible, which we
are compelled to do to determine which is the true one, that moment we
transfer the authority of the Bible to the brain, and the brain thus
becomes its judge and jury. The reason sits in judgment over the
Bible, and is thus proved to be superior to it. This is realized in
the experience of every man who is superior to an idiot; and thus the
question of Bible authority and superiority is at once and for ever
settled. It is proved to be inferior to reason, and subordinate to it,
and dare not advance a step beyond it.
V. INFALLIBLE REVELATION IMPOSSIBLE.
A Bible or revelation could only be infallible to a man or woman of
infallible understanding; that is, to an infallible being. And, as no
such being has ever existed, it is evident that no infallible revelation
has ever been issued.
VI. EVERY THING MUST BE INFALLIBLE.
No infallible revelation could be of any practical use to any person
unless all the circumstances connected with it were infallible. The
language in which it is written must be infallible; the person receiving
it must be infallible; and the reader, or his understanding, must also
be infallible. But, as no such state of things has ever existed, it
follows that no infallible revelation has ever been given to man, and is
absolutely impracticable.
VII. NO DIVINE REVELATION WITHOUT A SERIES OF MIRACLES.
A divine revelation must be miraculously inspired; and then it must be
miraculously preserved from the slightest alteration by the translator
or the transcriber, and from any error on the part of the printer.
And, finally, the reader's mind and understanding and judgment must
be miraculously guarded from any mistake or misunderstanding or wrong
conclusions relative to every text in the book. Otherwise there is no
absolute certainty that the revelation is a true one, or superior to s
mere human production.
VIII. OUR MORAL AND RELIGIOUS DUTIES CAN NOT BE LEARNED FROM ANY BIBLE
OR REVELATION.
A critical investigation of the matter will show that our moral and
religious duties are not half of them enumerated in the Bible; and to
suppose that God would reveal only a portion of them, and leave us
in the dark with respect to others, and compel us to find them out by
chance and conjecture, is to trifle with Omniscience, and assume that he
is short-sighted and imperfect.
IX. NO MORAL DUTY CLEARLY DEFINED BY THE BIBLE.
As the circumstances of each case of moral duty differ from every other
case, so our courses of action must be different. Hence revelation,
to be of any practical use, should have foreseen those circumstances,
pointed them out, and instructed us how to act in the case. But this is
not done in any case. We will illustrate: We are enjoined by the Bible
to "bring up a child in the way he should go;" but that way is not
pointed out or defined. We are not told which one of the thousand
churches he should join; we are not told, when a man's leg is broken,
how it should be mended; we are not told what means we should use to
restore the sick to health, nor instructed as to the best means to be
used for the preservation of health and life. And, as these are among
the first and most important duties, we should have been instructed
as to the best means to be used for that purpose; but these things are
omitted, and left to the province of reason. There is no case in which
we are not compelled to make reason our supreme judge to decide how we
shall practice the duties of revelation; and thus revelation is made a
servant or subsidiary agent.
Christians sometimes tell us, "Give us something better in the place
of our religion before you take it from us." But the Bible tells
them, "Cease to do evil [before you] learn to do well." Doom error to
destruction, and truth will spring out of the ashes. What would you
think of a man who should say to a physician, "Stop, sir! before you
administer that medicine to my child, I want to know what you are going
to let it have in place of its pains and aches"? We do not propose or
desire to destroy any religion as a whole, but only the deleterious
weeds which are choking and poisoning the healthy plants. We do not wish
to put down or arrest the progress of any truth.
The clergy sometimes assert that "we could not distinguish right from
wrong, but for the Bible." And was nothing known to the world about
right and wrong, or the means of distinguishing between them, during
the two thousand years which elapsed before the Bible was written?
Christians place Moses, its first writer, about fourteen hundred years
before Christ, while the Bible dates back 4004 B.C. And then what about
those millions of the inhabitants of the globe who never had our Bible?
And millions of them never had a Bible of any kind. Are they destitute
of moral perception? On the contrary, reliable authority, and even
Christian writers, assure us that the morals of many of those nations
will put to shame the morals of any nation professing the religion of
Christ. Take, for example, the Kalaos tribe of Africa, who appear to
have no formal religion whatever; and yet, as Dr. Livingstone informs
us, they maintain strict honesty in all their dealings with each other,
and have made considerable progress in the arts and manufactures. They
have never had a Bible or revelation of any kind. Look also at the
inhabitants of the Arru Islands. "These people," says Dr. Livingstone,
"appear to have no religion whatever; and yet they live in brotherly
peace, and respect each other's rights,"--the rights of property in the
fullest sense. The Rev. W. H. Clark, speaking of the Yoruba nation in
Central Africa, says, "Their moral and even their civil rights in some
respects would put to shame any Christian nation in the world." We might
present a hundred more cases of this kind; but these three cases are
sufficient to show that nations witt no Bible, no revelation, and even
no religion, transcend any Christian nation with respect to strict
honesty and a practical sense of right and wrong. How absurd, therefore,
is the idea shown to be, that a knowledge of the Christian Bible is
essential to the knowledge and practice of good morals! (See chap. 50.)
X. OUR DUTIES ARE ALL RECORDED IN THE BIBLE OF NATURE.
There is not a moral or religious duty that is not inscribed on the
tablet of man's soul or consciousness which he would not soon learn if
his attention were not constantly directed to, and his mind occupied
with, the erroneous theories of the dark, illiterate ages.
The God of nature has endowed every human being with two
sensations,--one of pleasure, and the other of pain,--which serve
as guides in all his actions, both physical and moral. They stand as
sentinels at the door of his soul to warn him of the approach of evil
of every kind. The moment their kingdom is invaded, they raise an alarm,
which he soon learns he must heed or suffer a penalty. If he drinks
intoxicating drinks, or improperly indulges his appetites and
propensities in any way, he learns, by suffering, that is the penalty
affixed to the violation of the law of health, and that he can not
escape it, and that no one can suffer for him, or make any "atonement
for his sins." If he attempts to handle fire, he is soon apprized that
he is meddling with something that will injure him; if he commits a
moral wrong against a neighbor, it re-acts upon himself in various ways,
as explained in Chap. 46. It thus acts as a two-edged sword, which cuts
both ways, punishes both the victim and the perpetrator. Man learns by
experience that crime will not only injure him, but, in many cases, will
destroy him.
On the other hand, when he practices virtue, she greets him with her
smiles, and fills his soul with pleasure. Let me illustrate:
The bells in some city toll the alarm of fire at midnight. In a few
minutes thousands of men and boys are congregated on the spot, many
of them half-dressed, and without hats or shoes, in order to aid a
fellow-being in rescuing his dwelling from the all-devouring element.
What prompts them to this act? It is not an injunction of their Bible.
No: it was the well-spring of philanthropy leaping up through their
souls that prompted to the deed, and not a written Bible. Again: why is
a mother's loving, watchful care ever exercised for the protection and
welfare of her child? She will endure almost any hardship or privation
which its welfare requires. Why does she do this?
Her Bible is silent on the subject. It is the impulse of nature welling
up from the fountain of maternal affection which prompts to these acts
of loving care,--to this moral duty. And this is true of all the other
moral duties of life. They are all imbibed al her fountain,--at the
fountain of Nature. A man with a good moral development needs no
revelation to teach him what is right, no Bible to prompt him to the
performance of his duties. We rejoice "with joy unspeakable" that the
world is fast learning this moral axiom. The Bible truly teaches us
that our moral duties are revealed in the book of nature (Chap. 14). And
Christian writers also admit this. Tertullian says, "Why pain yourselves
in searching for a divine law while you have that which is common to
mankind, and engraven upon the tablet of nature?" This is a wonderful
admission for a Christian writer to make, as it virtually concedes there
is no moral or religious necessity for a written Bible or revelation.
XI. A DIVINE REVELATION ADVERSE TO HUMAN PROGRESS.
One argument against the belief in a divine revelation is found in the
fact that it would tend to paralyze human effort, and thus make man a
mental sloth. If a man could find all his moral and religious duties
"cut and dried," and laid out before him, he would be thus robbed of
the motive to study and learn his duties by the exercise of his mental
powers. And having no incentives to healthy, energetic action, he would
become a drone and mental sloth. We can not believe God ever made such a
blunder as this.
XII. A DIVINE REVELATION WOULD IMPLY IMPERFECTION ON THE PART OF DEITY.
It is admitted that no revelation was ever given to man for more
than two thousand years after creation. This would imply that it
was forgotten by Infinite Wisdom, or else the moral necessity for
it overlooked. Either assumption would make God an imperfect and
short-sighted being. It would appear like an after-thought. After man
had lived so many years upon the earth, it just occurred to God that he
had not given him a written revelation instructing him what to do
and believe. The assumption of a divine revelation presupposes such a
blunder as this on the part of Omniscience, and is therefore derogatory
to his character.
Now, we ask seriously, Do not the foregoing facts and arguments show
that there is no moral or religious necessity for a divine revelation
to man? Let the believers in the necessity of the Bible, or a divine
revelation, show their fallacy, or for ever abandon the old mythological
assumption that it is necessary.
Another conclusive argument: A mind that could comprehend a truth
divinely revealed could originate that truth. We will give an
illustrative proof: A teacher works out a mathematical problem on the
blackboard for the benefit of his school. Now, every teacher and every
logical mind will admit that every pupil, possessing the mental capacity
to understand the mathematical truth thus revealed, could, by his own
unaided powers, have developed it himself sooner or later. In like
manner, the mind that could comprehend a truth revealed from God, could
originate it without the aid of revelation. Hence revelation would
be worse than useless, as it would furnish a pretext for mental or
intellectual sloth, and thus have a tendency to stop human progress
by doing for us what we could and should do ourselves. A logical
investigation of the case will show that we possess the mental capacity
to discover _every truth we need_, whether it be scientific, moral, or
_religious_; and such exercise furnishes the only means to keep the mind
in a healthy condition. And thus the problem is proved again.